Concerned Learning Material Developers wanting to address the poor quality of training material. For discussion of problems, and solutions to: the widely varying prices, sometimes obviously stolen material, and the question of who controls the Quality of QCTO material.
SCAM ON LEARNING MATERIAL SALES
10th Nov 2016 at 8:49 am #25324
Limbani Maxwell TeputepuParticipant
I have noticed a scam among Learning Material clients, where by they advertising that they are looking for a specific Qualification to buy.
- Once you reply that you have such qualification, they ask for a sample of a unit standard and alignment Matrix.
- They do this all the developers who replied to their advert.
- Once you send them the Matrix and a sample of the Unit Standard you will never hear from them again.
- What they do, they collect different unit standards samples from different developers and then they develop a qualification.
For developers PLEASE DON’T send pdf samples of Unit standards to the potential clients. it is much better to arrange a day where they can view the materials.
Please my fellow developers advise the best way to solve this matter.
10th Nov 2016 at 9:22 am #25355
10th Nov 2016 at 9:24 am #25354
10th Nov 2016 at 9:27 am #25353
Sylvia for President!!!!!!! Limbani, this is unfortunate the reality, and various discussions have been placed with this concern. Hoping that this is not one of the members of skills universe, as this is not acceptable. We want honest businesses and individuals. Thank you for bringing this up again, please give details to Sylvia, we need to get rid of rotten apples, as it has a negative impact on those who works with integrity, honesty and ethical standards!
10th Nov 2016 at 9:46 am #25352
This is best practice with anyone that wishes to purchase material, to ask for a small sample (perhaps 5 pages) and a matrix to see if all the SO’s and AC’s are covered. I will not purchase from another developer unless they can provide this, otherwise it is literally “buying blindly”. There are too many people out there that like me develop, but only do half a job. And many providers insist on this before they purchase.
10th Nov 2016 at 9:47 am #25351
To avoid this from happening, we send partial guides in PDF, clearly watermarked as a sample. Never a full Learner or Facilitator guide.
This has worked for us in the past. I hope it can help you as well.
10th Nov 2016 at 9:51 am #25350
Wilma de VilliersParticipant
The provides that want to buy sit with a similar problem. Sometimes the company is in another province and it is not possible to view the material. One needs to trust the snippets that you receive of the material when deciding to purchase or not. When you get the material is might not meet the same quality as the snippets.
At my institution we need to request 3 quotes and then there are various aspects that gets evaluated before the final decision is made. I usually ask for the contact details of another provider that is using the material – just to double check that the material meets the requirements for the field.
10th Nov 2016 at 10:01 am #25349
Limbani contacted me a week or two ago to sell some of his material. He was unable to send me a partial learner guide and only a guide on on what Unit Standards were and SAQA etc, it was well put together, However I could not see the quality and like you I advised the following:
Thank you, but with great respect this give me no idea of the Quality of your learning material? If you have followed all the AC’s and SO’s, if the CCFO’s have been adhered to. I have been in this industry for 20 years (writing course material) and if you wish to have success, it is a good idea to have samples or cores or electives of no longer than 10 pages as well as a alignment matrix doc.
I wish you well!
10th Nov 2016 at 10:11 am #25348
10th Nov 2016 at 10:13 am #25347
Limbani, individuals or providers wishing to acquire learning materials do need insight into learning materials they intend to buy. It is, unfortunately a reality that there is an abundance of poorly developed materials out in the field, and many providers have burnt their fingers paying for sub-standard materials or materials that do not meet the requirements. It is not always possible to arrange a visit because of distance. But in our electronic age, much can be achieved.
I would suggest that never send a full learner’s guide (or any other document) as a sample. Make an extract of certain parts of the learner’s guide and only a few of the assignments for summative assessment, especially at least one that has a practical component so the ‘evaluator’ can see that you have correctly designed the assessment. Send only the extracts. I make sure that I include the full contents page in my samples but not all the information.
This way, they won’t have a full document to copy. Someone who knows what to look for, will be able to evaluate your materials from these extracts.
Do send your alignment matrix as that is an important document indicating that every SO/AC has been covered (although there could still be problems).
10th Nov 2016 at 10:18 am #25346
The training packs contain activities to deliver with community groups, small service user groups, neighbourhood watch, housing associations, local Citizens Advice, colleges etc and are designed to be used as a whole workshop/ course or can be used as individual activities depending on the time and resources available to the facilitator. There are a range of activities to raise awareness of scams and to develop the skills and confidence to deal with them.
10th Nov 2016 at 10:22 am #25345
It is increasingly hard to protect our intellectual property; especially once a client has purchased and they have our material in Word format.
We do sign a SLA stating that the client gets training rights only, may not resell under any circumstances etc but we find our material with strangers and even other developers selling it on a very regular basis.
I agree with Marie Smith on sending extracts in PDF when it comes to samples. That has been working for us.
Keeping the full unit standard or qualification safe is a much bigger problem.
TETA has helped us quite a bit where this is concerned. We have a very long standing relationship with them and they know our material very well. They require a PDF letter from Smartscript on our letterhead stating that the client purchased the material from us, or they simply don’t give accreditation. I believe they require such a letter with all applications and it has been the developer’s savior for years.
Other SETAs, such as Services are much bigger so it gets much harder here as they are not as familiar with the writing style and format of the different developers.
It has been an ongoing battle for years.
We are really hoping this will get better with QCTO.
10th Nov 2016 at 10:31 am #25344
I would suggest that also goes to turnover of staff within SETAs, and the quality and level of staff handling these issues.
This is confirmation to me that the QCTO taking over as soon as possible. That would create continuity, consistency, and some certainty.
It also highlights that in restructures we need to consider how to retain competence, and the importance of institutional “memory”.
10th Nov 2016 at 10:39 am #25343
10th Nov 2016 at 10:50 am #25342
10th Nov 2016 at 11:18 am #25341
10th Nov 2016 at 11:29 am #25340
I propose that the following be a standard:
Full Matrix showing that everything has been covered.
Samples of: LG, FG, POE, Assessment Guides (Formative and Summative) of at least 1 AC and its associated SO’s.
I know that this will satisfy any of clients as well as me when I deal with a new developer.
10th Nov 2016 at 11:43 am #25339
Limbani Maxwell TeputepuParticipant
10th Nov 2016 at 11:44 am #25338
Okay, I get it. There is a solution, but the problem here is, that we do not have the power to implement this nationwide. Hold, that thought. These suggestions are important, but the powers that be, needs to see this. So, I was thinking ………….. yes I was (believe it or not – its like Ripleys). If a good standard can come out of this discussion (thank you Limbani) wouldn’t it benefit us, to forward this to the QCTO and to DHET? The Setas won’t have much say on policies/templates and “red tape” stipulations very soon. Very good ideas are coming out of this discussion, and an important way forward too.
10th Nov 2016 at 11:54 am #25337
10th Nov 2016 at 1:04 pm #25331
May I propose something here please. There are some good ideas here, and clearly we need more input. Let’s look at the following:
1. If there would be a standard process for learning material throughout all the Setas, what would be best?
2. Protection of the Developer and the SLA – a standard SLA that will be accepted by all Setas?
I am willing to take your suggestions to DHET that will be dealing with standardisation – so your absolute input is important. What’s the opinions/thoughts here?
10th Nov 2016 at 1:33 pm #25330
10th Nov 2016 at 1:34 pm #25329
10th Nov 2016 at 1:35 pm #25328
10th Nov 2016 at 1:35 pm #25327
10th Nov 2016 at 2:24 pm #25326
10th Nov 2016 at 2:38 pm #25325
Hi Nigel, here we need to keep our focus for sure. The QCTO is in total control of new occupational qualifications – so it is easier for them to address this with the new qualifications. I think where the problem comes in (expert developers, help me if I am wrong please – I don’t mind being corrected), with legacy qualifications which have not gone through the application processes of moving over to the new qualifications, here is the big problem that is being faced by Developers and Providers.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.